AI critiques
Storymakers reviews of every deck.
Each deck reviewed by an AI editor through the Storymakers lens — narrative arc, opening hook, closing call-to-action, and action-title quality. With a one-line verdict, top strengths and weaknesses, and three concrete fixes per deck.
1086 reviewed decks
· mean 59.8
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestions↑ Top 5 on narrative
↓ Toughest critiques
“ ” Verdict gallery
- “A well-argued thought-leadership essay with strong action titles and a coherent analytical build, but withholds its answer and ends without a call-to-action - use it as an exemplar of insight-led titling and analytical chaining, not of Storymakers answer-first opening or executive-grade closes.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “A textbook Roland Berger thought-leadership deck with excellent action titles and a clean SCQA arc — use the title craft and stakes-first opening as exemplars, but flag the missing MECE dividers and the under-developed recommendation as the parts a Storymakers reader should not copy.” — RolandBerger, 2023
- “A well-crafted historical build-up that earns its thesis but stops at problem-framing — use slides 2-8 as a teaching example of inductive action titles, not the deck as a whole, since the recommendation act is missing.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “A tight, opinionated 10-page POV with a clear contrarian thesis and declarative action titles — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for short-form arc and headline writing, less so for closing discipline or section structure.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “Tight, answer-first scenario-planning deck with strong analytical spine but a thin recommendation tail — use p.2 and p.5-9 as Storymakers exemplars for executive summaries and quantified action titles, not for the closing arc.” — RolandBerger, 2022
- “A textbook McKinsey diagnosis deck with a strong quantified middle but a buried thesis and a stakeholder-cautious close — use p.4-15 as a teaching example for analytical buildup, not the opening or closing.” — McKinsey, 2010
- “A textbook McKinsey diagnostic deck with a clean SCQA arc and strong action titles, but it stops one slide short of a committed recommendation — use pp.16-25 as a teaching example of narrative pivoting, not the closing.” — McKinsey, 2016
- “Strong analytical-build deck with a memorable reframing (Empowerment Line) and quantified recommendations — useful as a Storymakers teaching example for action-titled diagnosis (p.10, p.13), but the opening buries the answer and the 'BACK UP' divider breaks the resolution arc.” — McKinsey, 2014
All reviewed decks
1086 matching · page 22 / 46
62
narrative
fd4b1c5071718761657e3d9fd9dec1092cda8949
“A competent investor-conference deck with strong data-led brand titles in the middle act, but it skips the Complication, breaks its own 5-pillar promise, and bookends with one-word titles — useful as a teaching example for action-titled brand slides (pp.13-18, p.23), not for overall Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication: nowhere in pp.4-11 is a problem, threat, or competitive tension named, so the strategic priorities (p.6) feel asserted rather than earned.
62
narrative
Investor Presentation 022323 DB summit
“Competent investor presentation with unusually disciplined section structure and strong callouts, but buries its thesis behind 15 pages of setup and collapses the recommendation into a single slide — useful as a teaching example for section dividers and numeric callouts, not for Storymakers' answer-first arc.”
↓ Answer is buried: no thesis in the first 3 slides, and the recommendation slide (p30) is a single page before the appendix
62
narrative
Client Creditor Overview Q1 2024
“A disciplined creditor/IR information pack with strong answer-first framing and good action titles in the performance section, but it dumps into footnotes with no resolution and loses title discipline in the risk chapter — usable as a pillar-structure exemplar, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis or call-to-action — deck ends on p.25 Sustainability and falls straight into footnotes/disclaimers (p.26–29)
62
narrative
Client Creditor Overview August 2023
“A competent creditor-update deck with disciplined action titles in the first two sections but a noun-label Section 3 and no closing — use pp.5-19 as a teaching example of action titling, not the overall arc.”
↓ Section 3 (pp.21-27) abandons action-title discipline — slides titled 'Net balance sheet', 'Funding and liquidity', 'NIM', 'MREL/TLAC requirements', 'Sustainability' are noun-labels, not insights
62
narrative
20190312 Deutsche Bank MIT Conference
“A competent investor deck with disciplined action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens with label slides and fades out into repeated 'Announced Acquisitions' tables — useful as a teaching example for quantified titles and three-pillar structure, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Three near-identical slide titles 'Announced Acquisitions' at p.33-35 — a cardinal Storymakers sin of topic-labeling over insight
62
narrative
1100 Aircastle
“A competent investor-relations factbook with a thesis bookend and a few strong industry-trend titles, but a MECE-less middle and topic-label financials make it a cautionary Storymakers example rather than an exemplar — use pp.20-22 as a teaching moment on directional titles, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Complication: the deck never names the investor's worry (leverage? cyclicality? AAM disruption?) so the analytical build has nothing to resolve.
62
narrative
06 20230302 SDD Insights into Sustainable Finance Gov
“A competent two-pillar governance explainer with one sharp SCQA pivot (p.5→p.6) but a slow org-chart opening and a generic outlook/takeaways close — use the mid-deck pillar structure as a teaching example, not the bookends.”
↓ Opening spends three slides on org-chart context (p.2–3) before the tension appears on p.5 — buries the thesis
62
narrative
VC Human Capital Survey
“A competent longitudinal survey report with a real three-act spine and a genuine call-to-action block, but titles are topic labels and the resolution is dwarfed by the analytical middle — use pp.38-40 as a teaching example of an explicit recommendations coda, not the overall structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ Title layer carries almost no insight — 'Gender diversity' repeated on pp.12-15, 'Racial diversity' repeated 7x on pp.16-22; the pull-quotes do the work the titles should
62
narrative
The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020
“A competently structured thought-leadership survey report with strong data presentation but a soft thesis and aspirational close - useful as a teaching example of chart-per-finding rhythm, not of SCQA narrative or prescriptive closings.”
↓ Generic repeated titles 'The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020' on p.5, p.19, and p.29 waste the most valuable real estate on the slide
62
narrative
New Mexico State Staffing Study
“A thorough, well-templated operational diagnostic with disciplined per-function mini-arcs and quantified savings, but it reads as a reference document rather than a persuasive story — use its diagnosis-to-recommendation template as a teaching example, not its overall structure or opening/closing.”
↓ No aggregate savings / total-opportunity slide at either the opening or the close — the reader must sum ~$15M+ across 11 functional sections themselves
62
narrative
Nearshoring in Central America
“Solid analytical FDI/macro briefing with a strong data middle but weak narrative spine — use p.2 and p.15 as examples of good action titling, not the overall structure, which buries the recommendation under appendices.”
↓ No recommendation slide: the deck ends at p.18 with conditional upside and then 5 slides of appendix/sales/bios, so the 'so what' for a decision-maker is absent
62
narrative
Insights from the leading edge of generative AI adoption
“Solid Deloitte thought-leadership survey deck with strong action-title craft in the middle but a diffuse opening and a repetitive four-slide close — useful as a teaching example for declarative titles, not for narrative structure.”
↓ Four closing slides titled identically 'Next: Looking ahead' (p.25, 27, 29, 30) — reader cannot distinguish the recommendations or track progress
62
narrative
Fintech
“A competent analytical Deloitte industry report with strong action titles on the diagnostic slides but a missing 'Answer' act — use pages 9-11 as a teaching example of tension-carrying titles, not the deck's overall structure.”
↓ No governing thesis slide in the first 5 pages — the cover tagline 'On the brink of further disruption' is never restated as a crisp SCQA answer
62
narrative
Digital Maturity Index Survey 2022
“A competent Deloitte survey-report deck with solid trend-level action titles and a clean archetype build, but it opens slowly, labels its archetype section as topics, and stops short of a synthesized recommendation — usable as a teaching example for quantified trend titles, not for overall Storymakers arc.”
↓ Opening buries the headline: TOC at p.2, abstract exec summary at p.3, methodology deferred to p.8 — the 'EBIT uplift' thesis doesn't appear until p.4 and isn't quantified in a title anywhere
62
narrative
Customer Service Excellence 2022
“A competent Deloitte research report with a strong executive summary and several declarative insight titles, but it dissolves into topic-labelled deep-dives and has no recommendation slide — use slides 5-6, 15 and 24 as title-craft exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or next-steps slide before the team bio — closing (p.27-28) is two 'Deep-dive' appendix-style pages followed by 'Who we are'
62
narrative
2022 retail industry outlook
“A compact, co-branded Deloitte+Workday POV with a workable problem→answer spine but topic-labelled bookends and no explicit call-to-action — useful as a teaching example of mid-deck action titles (p.5, p.7), not of opening or closing craft.”
↓ p.3 'Executive summary' is a label, not a thesis — the deck never leads with its answer
62
narrative
2022 Deloitte US India Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Transparency Report
“A competent DEI transparency report with a recognizable pillar structure and good callout quotes, but it reads as a corporate disclosure rather than a Storymakers-grade argument — use the pillar-closing 'Summary of goals' slides as a teaching example, not the title-writing or opening.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis behind 5 front-matter/quote slides; no answer-first slide in the first 3 pages
62
narrative
id18 utilizing technology
“A solid analytical investor-day deck with quantified action titles in the IT-spend and risk pillars, but weak opening, a repetitive client-journey middle, and no synthesized close — use the p.7-12 and p.42-43 sequences as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening (p.1-6) buries the thesis — no stakes, no SCQA setup, just cover + disclaimer + generic banner
62
narrative
20230530 A long way down Credit Suisse Rolf Sethe 11th EBI Academic Debate
“A chronologically compelling academic-debate narrative with a strong scandal-cascade spine and two genuinely original conclusions, but it buries its thesis behind seven 'Contents' dividers and repetitive price-delta titles — use the scandal-walk (pp.15-27) as a teaching example of dramatic sequencing, not the deck's structure.”
↓ Seven 'Contents' section dividers (pp.2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 28, 35) instead of named MECE pillars — the deck's structure is invisible to the reader
62
narrative
2022 strategy update
“A financially rigorous investor-day deck with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but front-matter bloat, a single weak section divider, and a duplicated strategic narrative make it an exemplar of analytical discipline — not of Storymakers structure.”
↓ Five-slide front matter (p.1-5) including a duplicated cover delays the thesis and wastes the reader's attention budget
62
narrative
Everest Group CPG Services
“A competent analyst-report briefing with two strong declarative titles but a procedural opening, no complication act, and a recommendation that fades into five pages of appendix — use pp.5, 7, and 8 as action-title exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening act is procedural: pp.1-4 consume a quarter of the deck on cover, 'Introduction', 'Scope', and framework mechanics before any thesis is asserted
62
narrative
barclays global credit 2024
“A competent investor-day-style segment walkthrough with solid MECE by business unit and strong quant callouts, but it buries its overall thesis at both ends and repeats a single generic title nine times — use the Insurance sub-section (p.57–62) as the storytelling exemplar, not the deck as a whole.”
↓ Nine consecutive slides p.8–16 all titled 'Ascend Technology Platform' — the single biggest title-quality hit in the deck; the reader cannot skim the narrative
62
narrative
Retail resilience report
“A competent analytical research report with strong figure-level callouts in the middle, but it reads as a survey write-up rather than a Storymakers deck — useful as an example of data callouts, not of narrative architecture, opening hooks, or closing recommendations.”
↓ No thesis or stakes in the first 5 slides — cover is a rhetorical question, p.3 is a topic label
62
narrative
Investment Community Presentation Barclays Energy Conference
“A competent investor-relations pitch with a fast thesis and quantified titles, but it is a declarative asset tour rather than a Storymakers exemplar — useful as a reference for action-title quantification, not for narrative arc.”
↓ No complication/tension act — every slide reinforces the thesis, so there is no Storymakers 'why now' pressure driving the audience forward